| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, power attack can be very good against an enemy with high relative AC to your to hit value, where a 2nd or more attack has very little chance to hit. Power Attack increases the damage you can get out of one attack.
...(nor does 2e's design goals permit) a general bread-and-butter attack that you try to do as much as possible. The only exception to this general design principle is the Flurry Ranger.
Well, if you're an off-hand free fighter, then snagging strike makes your normal/basic strike completely obsolete. It's just a strict upgrade over your basic strike.
...(nor does 2e's design goals permit) a general bread-and-butter attack that you try to do as much as possible. The only exception to this general design principle is the Flurry Ranger.Well, if you're an off-hand free fighter, then snagging strike makes your normal/basic strike completely obsolete. It's just a strict upgrade over your basic strike.
True, but we have to keep in mind that you have to deliberately leave a hand empty. No shield, no second weapon, no two handed weapon. By leaving that hand open, you're leaving a lot on the table, you need something to make it worthwhile. And at least for snagging strike specifically, there are a lot of ways that an enemy can be flat-footed. Meaning sometimes it wont do anything at all.
Like alternatively you could have d10 reach or d12 weapon, instead of a d8 weapon.
I'm pretty sure the devs set "uses two handed weapon" as the baseline and that's why it feels like two handed weapons don't get much unique to them because it's the bar that other fighting styles are trying to get up to.
Sword and shield? You need some feat support to make not using a two handed weapon worthwhile. Is the added defense worth it? Maybe, if that's what you want your character to be.
Dual weapon? Number of attacks doesn't depend on the number of weapons you hold like it did in PF1. Without feats you're going to swing a weaker weapon the same number of times as anyone else. Double slice lets you make two attacks as two actions (which anyone could do) without MAP (not everyone can do) on the second attack. So while your weapons deal less damage, you have a higher chance to hit with your two attacks.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This thread got me interested so I did some calculations comparing Power Attack with Furious Focus and Exacting Strike.
I think some people are underestimating Power Attack with Furious Focus. Looks like a solid choice from level 10 and up. But it is easy to get the calculations wrong, so maybe I'm missing something.
Also, as resistances increase, Power Attack becomes even better.
The big downside is having to spend two feats.
Assumptions:
- Max strength boosts (+4 Level 1, +5 Level 10 , +6 Level 20)
- Fighter proficiency (Expert Level 1, Master Level 5, Legendary Level 13) - Fighter critical specialization (Level 5)
- Fighter (greater) weapon specialization
- Fundamental weapon runes on their respective levels
- Greatpick (1d10, Fatal 1d12)
- Power Attack (Level 1) and Furious Focus (Level 6)
- Exacting Strike (Level 1)
- MAP -5
- AC (Moderate for level, Table 2–5: Armor Class)
Damage comparison graphs:
No Resistance
Minimum Resistance, Table 2–8: Resistances and Weaknesses
Maximum Resistance, Table 2–8: Resistances and Weaknesses
I'd be curious to see a No Resistance (High AC) graph as well.
Probably high AC is more advantage to Power Attack due the lower change of hit your second Strike.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Looking back at the feat list from the Fighter screenshot back at GenCon, pretty sure Power Attack has been renamed to Vicious Swing. Furious Focus is still the same name in the Remaster.
True...(nor does 2e's design goals permit) a general bread-and-butter attack that you try to do as much as possible. The only exception to this general design principle is the Flurry Ranger.Well, if you're an off-hand free fighter, then snagging strike makes your normal/basic strike completely obsolete. It's just a strict upgrade over your basic strike.
You said that "The only exception to this general design principle is the Flurry Ranger" - that is false. For an open hand fighter, snagging strike completely replaces your basic strike. Everything else you said was addressing a completely different point.
If you're an open hand fighter, then using snagging strike is either the same as, or better than, your basic strike depending on the situation. But the basic strike is never better than snagging strike.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The insightful reveal here is that attacking with a 1 handed weapon is worse than attacking with a two handed weapon. Attacking with a two handed weapon is the power ceiling of PF2. If you attack with a one hander, you are trading damage for something inherently.
True...(nor does 2e's design goals permit) a general bread-and-butter attack that you try to do as much as possible. The only exception to this general design principle is the Flurry Ranger.Well, if you're an off-hand free fighter, then snagging strike makes your normal/basic strike completely obsolete. It's just a strict upgrade over your basic strike.You said that "The only exception to this general design principle is the Flurry Ranger" - that is false. For an open hand fighter, snagging strike completely replaces your basic strike. Everything else you said was addressing a completely different point.
If you're an open hand fighter, then using snagging strike is either the same as, or better than, your basic strike depending on the situation. But the basic strike is never better than snagging strike.
You're quoting me, but the original quote is from another person. I think you might have a little confusion happening here.
The point I was trying to make with my previous point is why it's okay that free hand fighter get a permanent "upgrade" to a basic strike in the form of Snagging Strike.
The insightful reveal here is that attacking with a 1 handed weapon is worse than attacking with a two handed weapon. Attacking with a two handed weapon is the power ceiling of PF2. If you attack with a one hander, you are trading damage for something inherently.
Exactly what I was attempting to point out. Dual wielding or free hand fighting styles need some sort of innate boost to make them roughly comparable to wielding a two handed weapon.
|
Exactly what I was attempting to point out. Dual wielding or free hand fighting styles need some sort of innate boost to make them roughly comparable to wielding a two handed weapon.
You get to do something with your other hand, like Raise Shield, Shove or Parry.
Debating whether the armor class bump (or Shield Block damage reduction) is worthwhile is beyond me, as it includes too many new variables.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think Power Attack just allows fighter PCs to better punch through an enemy's resistances. It works as intended, so no need for errata.
The fact that every other fighting style has a "defining feat" may or may not be true, but that sort of symmetry isn't a design principle of 2E. For example, there's INT- and WIS-based prepared casters, but no CHA-based prepared casters.
What about comparing the exacting strike fighter to the power attack fighter in a duel?
Lets say PA fighter goes first. Move PA ends turn.ES fighter strikes, ES, strikes.
The PA fighter does this next. PA then Step.
Does the ES fighter ever get another chance for ES to matter? Not if the PA fighter keeps stepping for their last action right?
Is power attack better here? Probably.
This of course is only considering they only have PA or ES.
So I would really think of ES as a 3 action turn move. Power attack is a 2 action that frees up the third for more things. Furious focus makes another strike more practical but moving might still be better in some cases.
ES is still good here too because you have the flexibility it provides. Strike ES, if you hit you can move or if you miss take that third strike if the damage is more important than moving.
Or take PA and ES and once you have furious focus get hasted and use all of it in one turn. PA then ES then hasted strike
What about comparing the exacting strike fighter to the power attack fighter in a duel?I think Power Attack just allows fighter PCs to better punch through an enemy's resistances. It works as intended, so no need for errata.
The fact that every other fighting style has a "defining feat" may or may not be true, but that sort of symmetry isn't a design principle of 2E. For example, there's INT- and WIS-based prepared casters, but no CHA-based prepared casters.
I wouldn't, because comparing PCs directly like that in a damage race tells you nothing useful about the game as it's meant to actually be played or their relative power levels compared to each other.
On the versatility front, Exacting Strike only helps you if you have no better Press abilities (hell, the same could be said about powerful two-action activities like Intimidating Strike: these so-called "meta-strikes" lower the value of ES), so even in a "best case" scenario for Exacting Strike (access to a single striking rune and before PA gets its secone bonus die at level 10), I'd rate Power Attack higher for its ability to let you tackle certain problems like high AC or damage resistance, instead of making you have to mentally commit three actions to attacking to POTENTIALLY get a benefit, which is a set of actions so specific only specialized builds should be attempting to pull off.
In the case of Haste you mentioned, you'd probably be better off using your Haste action moving rather than using it on a -10 attack at full MAP, since a free Stride always has the baseline potency of a Stride whereas a normal Strike usually sucks when you rely on feats that give you different feats to Strike.
I think all press abilities are changing in the remaster. This is probably a wait and see situation until the remaster.
Oh, for real? I thought removing the Open trait was the only confirmed change for the class, maces and flail crit spec nonwithstanding.